I have no idea whether or not the Pope is Gay. I don't even know who the actual Pope is. That being said, it would be unfair of me to call the Pope anything. And if there is no proof that the Pope is anything and is accused of unsubstantiated labels, that would not be right.

Yes, abortion is up to the woman. It is her body.

Sexual orientation is not a preference or choice.

Children have basic rights; the right to be free from physical force -- same basic right as adults. Our rights derive from our ability to live independently with the ability to make rational decisions. Children do not have the ability to make rational choices. As a matter of fact, if left to their own devices, giving children the freedom of choice could be damaging to them. At what exact moment in life do children gain the mental capacity to take care of themselves? It varies. But a child must go through a period of development. Thus we make laws to govern this.

None of my business how many spouses one chooses to have or what sex either. One wife is more than enough for me. Two would drive me crazy :)

I don't get to choose whose morals are right. Each person decides that; but we cannot restrict any person's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property. Nor can any other person, group, or government restrict our own rights to such.

And I am really ticked that I cannot buy a 20 ounce soft drink in NYC :(

Why should we attack beliefs that deny human beings their civil rights? Watch the movie...

Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong.

Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.

Nick. I didn't say is an abortion up to a woman. I said should we be able to force religious organizations to do them. It is against their core tenants. But many here say its perfectly moral. Where are you drawing the line?

Jason.

Nobody is coming or anyone. Except maybe you guys. Forcing the world to conform to your morals. First they can for the religious and the BSA would be more apt an example.

I sort of agree with Michael, no reason to call the pope a closeted gAy. Some people revere him and that's offensive to them.

Although the evil Jerry got a good laugh.

If the Catholic church runs a hospital, and hires people, and gives them health care as an employee benefit, the Catholic church should not force those employees to follow Catholic beliefs, like not using birth control.

What is it, maybe half the hospitals are run by Catholics who want us to follow their beleifs? And the other half of the hospitals are run by profit making corporations who don't want us to get treatment that would reduce their profit? Something wrong here.

Obama and the Catholic church reach some compromise where their employees can get health care without compromising the Catholic Church beliefs. And the Republicans seize on the opportunity to go after Obama for being anti-religious.

"Nick. I didn't say is an abortion up to a woman. I said should we be able to force religious organizations to do them. It is against their core tenants."

Whether or not to have an abortion is up to the woman. Whether or not to perform an abortion is up to the doctor (or hospital). If an abortion will save a mother's life, I would hope all doctors (or hospitals) would opt to save the mother's life.

"The letter cites circumstances in three cases where Catholic Hospitals transferred patients with pregnancy related emergencies under circumstances the ACLU believe mandated a primary abortion that could have been provided at the Catholic facility."

Pope Paul II (1464–1471) is popularly alleged to have died due to indigestion arising from eating melon in excess,[42][43] though a rumour was spread by the pontiff's detractors that he died while engaging in sodomy.[citation needed]

Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favourites in return for sexual favours. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[44][better source needed] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[45][verification needed]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was allegedly a practising homosexual, according to some modern and contemporary sources (Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio). He was alleged to have had a particular (albeit one-sided) infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[46]

Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[47]"

Thanks, Dave, for piquing my curiosity.I guess the Vatican eventually learned how to keep the lid on.

You pulled out one extreme example. There is also the discussion about forcing Catholic hospitals to preform non life or death abortions. Weather they have to pay forth birth control for employees. Etc... These issues are coming up or have come up. I see the discussion surrounding BSA to be similar.

I'm really am surprised that you and your typically extremely libertarian views don't extend to protection/hands off of the church. But considering you disdain you have expressed for any religion, perhaps I shouldn't be.

"There is also the discussion about forcing Catholic hospitals to preform non life or death abortions. Weather they have to pay forth birth control for employees."

I think I said, whether to perform, or not to perform an abortion is up to the doctor (or hospital). If a doctor is against abortions, or for abortions, he doesn't sign up with a clinic or hospital that does things against his personal beliefs. The decision whether a clinic or hospital will perform abortions is up to the clinic or the hospital; NOT the government. Just to clarify, by abortion I am talking about non life or death situations for the mother.

Now... regarding requiring ANY company or organization to provide birth control for employees -- or anything else that goes with this train of thought to include health care. This is not the government's job. It should be up to the company or organization to decide what benefits it chooses to provide, or not to provide. BTW, I distain Libertarians, Liberals, and Conservatives.

This IS assuming that there is something offensive about GAY people, right? If the Pope is GAY, what's the harm? As long as he isn't a pedophile, right? But then, there are people who equate GAYS with being pedophiles. And there seem to be a disproportionate number of Catholic priests who are pedophiles. So I'm assuming, by the logic, that it's okay to be a pedophile, but not GAY? Or in even more screwy logic, since GAYS are pedophiles, then all those pedophile priests are GAY? Or is it the other way around, since the priests are GAY they must all be pedophiles? Doesn't that then mean that it is okay to be GAY since it is okay to be a pedophile?

Let me see if I have this right: Abortion is wrong because the Church says it is so, and pedophiles are okay, but GAYS, who tend to be pedophiles, are evil, whereas pedophiles are swept under the table, but because GAYAS cannot have children, they therefore cannot get abortions, therefore , they can't be bad, but by being pedophiles they are the harbingers of the end of all things abortion, while being impossibly GAY, which is bad, because GAYS are pedophiles, which automatically makes them good, and thereby equated with abortion, which is bad, and priests, having taken a vow of chastity, cannot possibly be pedophiles, and therefore cannot be GAY, and thereby having every possibility of having something to do with abortion, which cannot be instigated by GAYS, but very possibly be instigated by pedophiles, who cannot get an abortion. So all good. Makes sense.

My point is: it is just as offensive to imply there is anything at all wrong with being GAY. Why does no one defend GAY people here on BPL?

Edit: GREAT! So "GAY" is considered profanity (which is DISCRIMINATION here at BPL! Hello!!!!), but "pedophile" is perfectly okay to write?!?

Scout Oath On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout LawA Scout is: Trustworthy – A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

Loyal – A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.

Helpful – A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.

Friendly – A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

Courteous – A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

Kind – A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated.

Obedient – A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

Cheerful – A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.

Thrifty – A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.

Brave – A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.

Clean – A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

Reverent – A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

If you go to the beginning of this thread, you will see I posted the vision statement, scout law, and the scout oath. Irrespective of my view of religion, I posted that agnostics and atheists are not aligned to the organization's core mission in regards to God. We need to respect BSA's right to limit membership to those who profess a belief in God. We cannot criticize them for this. BSA is non-denominational.

Restricting Gays is not aligned to non-denominational belief in God. Sexual orientation is not a moral issue; deny membership based on sexual orientation is a moral issue.

The OP had a problem with the restriction against all 3; agnostics, atheists, and Gays. He also had a problem signing the "Principles" document. He wondered if he should just sign it and work within the organization to change views. My suggestion was to "move on."

We have religious freedom to worship as we please, and we must allow any group to do this. It is a civil right. Parents who seek organizations for their children with an emphasis on "duty to God" should be able to do so without individuals inside the organization challenging the concept of God.

We do not have the right to restrict civil rights. As a private organization, BSA does have them legal right to restrict membership to Gays, but not the moral right. They need to change this and it is good that public pressure may force the to do so.

I don't know a single Gay person that has suggested I change my sexual orientation. In fact I would imagine the thought would be irrational to a Gay person - to try and convince someone to change their orientation; and this why so many Gay and non-Gay people are criticizing the BSA. Time to shed the bigotry.